Evolutionary Truth by Piltdown Superman

Penguins, Evolution and Tall Tales

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Fri, 24 May 2013 09:00:00 +0000

A while ago, I posted an article about the amazing design of penguins' ability to swim. Now there's something even more amazing: Stories about how they evolved. There are claims that the puzzle of penguin evolution are "solved".

stock.xchng/saito

There is a great deal of conjecture and outright guesswork, but nothing that resembles actual science. It makes much more sense to believe that penguins were actually designed the way they are, instead of making up tall tales to fit evolutionary presuppositions. After all, the fossil record is still a hostile witness to evolution.

Penguins are superb swimmers, well adapted to their Antarctic climate. They use their wings to “fly” in a different fluid—water, not air. The sight of a swarm of penguins darting through the water under the ice with speed and grace makes for dramatic film footage. Most of the major science news sites (e.g., BBC News, National Geographic, Science Now, Nature News, New Scientist) are claiming that the “puzzle” of penguin flightlessness has been “solved” in a new study published in PNAS. Earlier theories suggested that the lack of predators led to flightlessness, or that evolution had a hard time producing a wing that was good at both flying and swimming.

An international team took a different approach. They measured the energy demands of flight. There’s no question that maintaining flight in the air is costly. Some birds, like cormorants and penguins, are good at both. But if aerial flight is not required for successful feeding, a bird could focus its wings, feet, and other body parts on just the swimming.

You can read the rest of "The Evolution of Penguins", here.

Continental Erosion Observations and the Global Flood Model

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Wed, 22 May 2013 09:00:00 +0000

Tibetan Plateau - Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC

Actualist and uniformitarian geologists are having to deal with more and more evidence for the global Flood. Current geology does not adequately explain observational evidence, including the coarse gravel sheets in south-central Asia. Rapid continental erosion and uplifts of mountains fit some creationist models.

Tall erosional remnants indicate rapid, continent-wide erosion, which is consistent with the Retreating Stage of the Flood. While the floodwaters were retreating and eroding the continents, resistant rocks were transported long distances, as has been documented for the United States. A similar pattern of coarse gravel transport is evident in the mountains of south-central Asia. These areas are south of the Himalayas, north of the Tibetan Plateau, all around the Tian Shan Mountains, southwest of the Zagros Mountains, and east of the Tibetan Plateau on the west edge of the Sichuan basin. The character of the coarse gravel shed from the rising south-central Asian mountains is best interpreted within the Retreating Stage of the Flood, which also implies that the Flood/post-Flood boundary is in the very ‘late Cenozoic’ in this area, assuming the uniformitarian timescale.

During the Retreating Stage of the Flood, continents and mountains rose above the floodwaters while the ocean basins and valleys sank, causing the waters to flow off the continents (Psalm 104:6–9). During the Retreating Stage, the runoff first caused sheet erosion as the continents rose, which transformed progressively, starting at higher altitudes first, into channelized flow. The channels were probably relatively wide at first (c. 75 km wide), and by the end of the Flood they were relatively narrow (c. 2 km wide). There is abundant geomorphological evidence for this runoff event, which occurred between Day 150 and 371 of the Flood, but the evidence is very difficult for uniformitarian scientists to explain.

Mounting evidence is increasingly portraying the Retreating Stage of the Flood as a period of continental erosion, so most of the sedimentary rocks left behind were likely deposited during the early part of the Flood, before Day 150.

To finish reading, rock on over to "Retreating Stage formation of gravel sheets in south-central Asia".

What About Humans and Dinosaurs Fossilized Together?

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Tue, 21 May 2013 09:00:00 +0000

Some people will smugly ask, "If dinosaurs and humans lived together, why don't we find their fossils in the same strata?", as if this was a "smoking gun" refutation of Flood geology. Their "Gotcha!" question actually shows how little they know about paleontology (and conveniently ignores evidence that humans and dinosaurs did indeed live at the same time).

Fossilization is actually quite rare. Of the billions of fossils, the overwhelming majority are shallow marine organisms, trees, plants, algae and so on. This is testimony to catastrophic flooding. For actual vertebrates, the percentage of their fossils is one quarter of one percent. When looking for vertebrate fossils that consist of more than one bone, the number shrinks dramatically. Fossils of humans and other mammals are extremely rare.

Further, the question itself is based on a logical fallacy. Remember the saying, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (or, argument from silence). These scarce fossils would have to be found and then identified. And would evolutionists actually admit to finding them, since it would add another nail in the coffin of the evolutionary worldview?

Dinosaur fossils have been found on every continent on Earth; humans have inhabited, and continue to inhabit, every continent on Earth. Thus, it would seem that if dinosaurs and humans really did live as contemporaries at one time, as creationists contend, human fossils would have been found alongside, near, or in the same strata as dinosaur fossils. So, is there evidence from the fossil record of their coexistence?

Admittedly, at times questions like these appear somewhat puzzling, at least on the surface. We know from the biblical record that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Furthermore, many ancient paintings, figurines, rock carvings, and historical references confirm they were contemporaries upon the Earth. Still, many wonder why, at first glance, the fossil record seems not to substantiate creationists’ claims that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaries?

You really should read the rest of "Have Dinosaur and Human Fossils Been Found Together?" in context. It makes some excellent points.

Who Owns the Rights to Science?

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Mon, 20 May 2013 09:00:00 +0000

Count the fallacies!
Also, Twitter "Tweets" are public. They said so.

People have a serious misunderstanding of the nature, origin and purpose of science. It is a method, a tool for acquiring knowledge. The definition of science cannot be determined by science, nor can any of the scientific methods. These definitions are philosophical in nature. When there are arbitrary, self-serving assertions such as, "You must be an atheist to use science", the entire process is misunderstood. Many people cannot differentiate between operational science and historical science. Further, many will equivocate "science" with "evolution", leading to the fabrication that evolution is science and misleading people who do not know the difference.

Like the silly assertion above, I have had people say that Christians cannot do science because of their worldview. A scientist's belief in creation does not negate his or her ability to perform actual science. One of the most baffling remarks I ever encountered was when I pointed out that there are creationists involved in space missions. The comment was along the lines of, "If I was 200 miles above the Earth, I wouldn't want my fate in the hands of someone who believes in a Bronze Age book". Aside from the bigotry, it was also prejudicial conjecture and a circumstantial ad hominem.

Other people have made silly assertions such as, "You hate science, so you have no right to use a computer, which was made by atheists!" Uh, right, Buttercup. Except it's fallacious. And no, we do not hate science, we just will not allow you to equivocate science with evolution.

morgueFile/cohdra

When returning from an appointment with Steve the auto mechanic, I realized that he is a scientist! Think about it. He observes a phenomenon (my "brake" light was on), relies on his training, experience, skills, intelligence and integrity (he could have used his superior knowledge to cheat me, others have done this in the past). He has solved problems for both my wife and me, and even found ways to avoid charging our belabored bank accounts unnecessary amounts. Steve is a Christian, and I do not think he believes in evolution. I do not know for sure. Why? Because his belief in origins does not affect his ability to perform the science of being a mechanic!

Despite the painfully obvious facts, secularists insist that atheism belongs to them, and that Christians are unable to do science stuff. (Atheists even seem to think that they "own" dinosaurs!) They have a woefully inadequate understanding of science and its history.

Many people today insist that science can only be done by people who have a secular worldview—or at least by those who are willing to leave their religious views at the door as they enter the science lab. Several popular atheists and evolutionists have contended that people who reject the big bang and the evolution of living things are so backward that they cannot even be involved in developing new technologies. But is this really the case, or are these opponents of a biblical worldview simply making assertions that cannot be supported with facts and substantial arguments, having an incorrect understanding of true science?

A friend of the ministry was recently challenged by the comment that science can only be done through a purely secular evolutionary framework. We have decided to publish a response for the sake of teaching. Such statements are blatantly absurd and are a type of arbitrary fallacy called an “ignorant conjecture.” In other words, these people simply do not know the past, nor are they familiar with what science really is.

I fully believe that you would do well to read the rest of "Is Science Secular?"

One-Minute Video: Dinosaur Death Throes

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Sat, 18 May 2013 11:00:00 +0000

Occasionally, the one-minute audio bits from CMI have been made into videos after I downloaded them. So, what was going to be "Audio Saturday" is being replaced today (perhaps more often).

PD/Fair Use

Dinosaur fossils have often been found with the creatures in unusual poses. These are characteristic of asphyxiation. Many fossils reveal that the critters were taken by surprise. Paleontologists are puzzled. Proponents of the Global Flood are not at all surprised.

Dinosaur Tracks Support Creationist Model

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Fri, 17 May 2013 19:00:00 +0000

For many years, uniformitarian geologists claimed that fossils were formed over long periods of time. Something died, sank, was buried by sediment and so forth, and became a fossil. Some seem to still believe this, but it defies common sense and the most basic observations.

morgueFile/gracey

One killer for the idea that fossils happen slowly is the very existence of their tracks. Yes, dinosaurs left tracks in mud. And it is apparent that different ones were attempting to deal with flood waters. This supports creationist models for the Noachian Flood.

What's so fascinating about dinosaur tracks? Maybe it's because their many mysteries beg for solutions. For instance, because tracks in mud are so short-lived today, how did dinosaur tracks ever preserve in the first place? Newly described prints bolster biblical creation's explanation of dinosaur footprints.

Researchers working in China's Sichuan Province recently reported their discovery in the Chinese Science Bulletin. Their article documents several different types of dinosaur trackways, including two theropods (bipedal “lizard-hipped”), one sauropod (long-neck), and four ornithopods (duck-billed) all traveling in the same direction at about the same time.

You can wade over and finish reading, "Dinosaurs Swimming out of Necessity".

Life on Mars? Not Even on Saturday Night!

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Thu, 16 May 2013 19:00:00 +0000

Gale Crater on Mars
NASA/JPL-Caltech/University of Arizona (slightly modified)

Evolutionists are desperate to find signs of life elsewhere in the universe. They insist that evolution is true here, so it must have happened out there. Finding some kind of life would (to them) prove evolution. But then, we're used to circular reasoning from them.

Actual observations are constantly wrecking their hypotheses and dreams. Water on Mars would be a good chance of finding life on Mars. Bzzzzz! Wrong answer, Hans! What appeared to be signs of water are actually signs of wind. The more we learn about Mars, the more we learn that it is downright toxic, and even colonizing Mars is probably a bad idea.

Evidence disputes Mars water, let alone life. It’s looking like a toxic place. Besides, where would the water come from?

The big mound in Gale Crater, site of the Mars Curiosity Rover, looked like a tantalizing place to look for habitability. Mt. Sharp, as it is called, appeared to be a mountain laid down by water. Now, however, it looks more likely it was built by wind. Astrobiology Magazine shared the bad news from Princeton: “If correct, the research could dilute expectations that the mound holds evidence of a large body of water, which would have important implications for understanding Mars’ past habitability.”

Where would the water have come from, anyway? Live Science proclaimed that Mars and the core of Jupiter formed from “large space crashes.” The energy of impacts would seem to obliterate volatile compounds (including water). That’s why cosmogonists try to find other sources for Earth’s oceans, assuming it crashed into existence similarly. The highly speculative theory proposed by U of Chicago scientists, given credence in the article, relies on numerous improbabilities, among them: (1) dust particles sticking together to make planetestimals, (2) sufficient numbers of planetesimals colliding and accreting together instead of breaking up into fine particles, and (3) sufficient time before all the planet-forming ingredients are expelled from the system.

You can read the rest of "Trouble for Mars Lifers", here.

Part of the Problem with Evolutionists

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Wed, 15 May 2013 19:00:00 +0000

Before I went ahead with this article, I checked with some other people about the content. Three hours before auto-publish, I removed the name of the evolution stormtrooper that I dealt with, even though they thought I should use it.

"Dr. Duncan, I forbid you from letting any student pass your class if they still believe in their imaginary friends by the end of the semester. If you don’t make every student in there an atheist by the time they graduate, then you, sir, have failed as an educator!"

— Dr. Robert Farris, The Deception by Steven J. Wright, p. 68

Source for this excellent image not found.

We have seen that indoctrination is paramount in evolutionary education; students are not told how to think (critically, honestly examining the evidence), but what to think (presupposing that evolution is true, and then using circular reasoning to "prove" it). Although the "educator" in the example at the top is fictional, such antics are not. Teachers have actively ridiculed Christians and sought to destroy their faith, and those that are openly creationist are at the receiving end of blatant discrimination. It is imperative for the Evo Sith to protect their fundamentally flawed faith, resorting to deceiving the students, using faulty textbooks, bad thinking and more. So it is not a surprise that Darwin's Cheerleaders are bullies, attempting to silence creationists and pa-TROLL-ing the Web with bad attitudes and worse "science". (One atheopath tactic is to review books that they have not read simply because they disagree with the topic. This is a common trick, and one reason that the reviews at Amazon are no longer very credible.) They are also fond of derision as a means of attempting to silence the opposition.

I had a bit of an encounter with one of these "instructors". But first, some background.

One of the "occupational hazards" of taking a stand for our academic, intellectual and speech freedoms is that we gain stalkers. One in particular is obsessed with inflicting his unwanted opinions on others. He often resorts to spamming. I analyzed what passes for logic on his planet, (and it appears that anyone who says something he does not like is quickly labled "liar"), hoping he would be embarrassed and go away. Nothing doing, he's too obsessed. I had to cancel one e-mail account (come on, G-mail, you need better filters), and he is blocked on my Hotmail/Outlook account. This stalker and libeler knows that he's blocked, but he still adds me to his spam list anyway. Perhaps he thinks his spam will magically go through if he sends enough?

I learned about his rage about this post when I received a "reply to all" from one of his correspondents, a little-known professor. The message was amazingly vacuous. I did not ask to be on the spam-all reply list. He caught me at a bad time, and here is the exchange:

I know that you are passionate about  this, but take some pleasure in knowing that the trash projected by people like Tas Walker does not have any impact on the work or thinking of working scientists, the only people whose opinions matter on issues of science.

Look at the loaded terminology and ridicule. This guy is a scientist? They are supposed to use logic, you know. Such fallacies and arrogance! I couldn't let that go:

Thanks for including me in your reply to all. I can use your illogical, myopic and bigoted remarks in a Weblog.

To re-use one of my favorite quotes from Mark Levin, "That's right, I said it!" He replied:

Do I care?

Take note that I did not ask for this correspondence (he sent it to me and to five other people), and I did tell him that it was going to be put on a Weblog. He persisted.

I refrained from giving his name, telephone number, IP address, e-mail address and physical address that are in his e-mail signature. How noble of me (yawn)."Do I care?" His indication of unconcern was clearly the opposite of the truth. So, I gave him a bit more:

Obviously not. Just another bigot in action. Noted.

He could not let my remark go, and came back with:

Actually, just another scientist with enough knowledge to see that creationism is nonsense and that its proponents are dishonest. But hey, that's just me and the vast majority of scientists around the world.

Is this guy for real? He's appealing to his own authority and using sweeping generalizations as well as defaming thousands of people. It's a shame that people like this are "educating" people. I called him on some of it, not having the time or desire to go into an analysis of his logical fallacies:

Might makes right, huh, Skippy? Majority rules? Everyone believed in phlogiston at one time. Your false religion of evolutionism is the modern phlogiston theory. Trot on.

(If you want to know about phlogiston, click here.)

Yes, I'm not sugar-coating my irritation.

Well, I knew his ego would not rest, but I was going to turn in for the night. Perhaps he did as well, because when I came home from work, I found some more gems from the guy who said he did not care.

Science moves forward on the consensus of the experts in a particular field. Creationists do not operate in that environment. They never take their arguments to the scientific community. Therefore, creationist thinking can never impact science, Skippy.

He reminds me of Norman the Paranoid Troll. I named him "Norman". His response was to show his brilliance by calling me "Norman" right back. Now this "scientist" is showing the same lack of imagination by calling me "Skippy" in return.

More importantly, he is appealing to a kind of ruling elite about the absurd mob rule "consensus of the experts". I guess Einstein, Pasteur, Lister and many other scientists broke the rules then, huh? The claim that "creationists do not operate in that environment" is an outright lie. There are many scientists who are creationists and are working in their fields. "Therefore, creationist thinking can never impact science" is not only built on an untrue premise, it is based on his faulty biases.

By the way, phogiston theory was disproved by the methods of modern science over 250 years ago, in much the same way that Young Earth Creationism was disproved. So, although you are right that old scientific ideas are sometimes replaced by new ideas on the power of the evidence, science always moves forward. Never backward. So you should not hold out hope of resurrecting your long-ago disproven biblical notions within the scientific arena. Ain’t neva gonna happen, Skippy.

Ummm...Young Earth creationism has not been "disproved", except in the presuppositions of evolutionists using circular reasoning, as has been demonstrated here many times. And the biblical "notions" have not been disproved, sorry. This guy is full of assertions. I see where Darwin's Cheerleaders get this stuff. He wasn't done:

One more thing, Bob. If you ever decide you want to start engaging the evidence honestly and learn some actual science from an actual scientist, I’d be happy to help. Until then, I wish you the best of luck dealing with your cognitive dissonance.

Now we're on a first-name basis? Not only does this misotheist impugn thousands of creationist scientists and millions of Christians, he appeals to his own authority (and ego) by offering to edjamakate me, since he is an "actual scientist" by virtue of being an evolutionist. Edit: Perhaps this is one reason that tenured evolution indoctrinators are having problems.

In addition, not only did he call me dishonest because of my views, he apparently is able to practice psychology and make a diagnosis from just a few lines of correspondence (I have some speculations about his own ego and need to be accepted, but never mind about those now). He was vituperative and irrational — why would anyone want to be taught by him?

So, here you have it: A prime example of the irrational attempting to educate the youth, but all they do is continue to indoctrinate. Some of us are true freethinkers and do not accept evolutionism just because we are told it is true, and we reject faith in Scientism. Hey, I wonder if this is one of those people who claim that we reject evolution because we do not understand it, but do not understand it themselves?

—Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Gettin' Down and Dirty with Science

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Tue, 14 May 2013 19:00:00 +0000

stock.xchng/ninci

It has been stated here several times before, but must be repeated: Scientists are not the impartial, objective bringers of knowledge that many people think. In reality, they are human. As such, they are subject to the same ambitions, lusts, greed, dishonesty and other vices that the rest of us face. And the competition to produce something is fierce.

"Why are you defaming scientists, Cowboy Bob?"

No, dispelling false images is not defamatory. In fact, it's a public service. People do not need to be accepting something as truth just because a scientist says so. We still have to use our minds. They might appreciate the chance to get off the pedestals, as they are not objects of worship — I doubt that many choose to be, either.

The peer review process is biased, discriminatory and unreliable. Papers are being recalled for serious errors, and some are outright plagiarized. Academic fraud does exist, I hate to tell you.

Being a scientist is a noble profession, but it has its darker side. From fierce competition to plagiarism to outright scientific fraud, scientists are far from immune to the sordid.

A panel of experts discussed the slimy side of science at an event held here on April 30 at the New York Academy of Sciences and moderated by "Scientific American" Editor-in-Chief Mariette DiChristina.

Dr. Morton Meyers, professor and emeritus chairman of the department of radiology at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Stony Brook, recounted historical conflicts over the Nobel Prize; Harold "Skip" Garner, a professor at Virginia Bioinformatics Institute at Virginia Tech, described wholesale plagiarism in scientific literature; and Dr. Ivan Oransky, executive editor of Reuters Health, delved into the slippery world of retracted studies.

You can read the rest of "Dark and Dirty: The Cutthroat Side of Science", here.

Chilling Effects of Uniformitarian Assumptions in the Arctic

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Mon, 13 May 2013 19:00:00 +0000

NOAA

Evolutionary geologists insist on using their failed models and presuppositions when doing their studies. Uniformitarianism, "the present is the key to the past", takes present processes and assumes that they have been constant. These assumptions frequently prove embarrassing, inaccurate and contradictory within their own framework. If they would admit that their models did not work and used the far more accurate biblical Noachian Flood models, they would have greatly improved results.

An alarming headline on Science News reads, "Ice-Free Arctic May Be in Our Future, International Researchers Say". This report provides a classic example of how researchers’ flawed understanding of earth’s geological history leads them to to seriously wrong conclusions. Their conclusions actually fly in the face of the evidence they report, and in this case it could cause unnecessary panic about a situation that will not happen.

The report explains that researchers analysed a long continental drill core that coveres the period of the Pleistocene ice age.

You can chill while you finish reading "'Ice-free Arctic' wrong conclusion based on flawed geological history". Edit: Note the comments, where a rabid evolutionists wants to score cheap points by quibbling over a minor wording variance that does not change the validity of the article.

Audio Saturday — What about the Roswell UFO?

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Sat, 11 May 2013 11:00:00 +0000

"Oh, come on, Cowboy Bob! What do UFOs have to do with evolution?"

More than you think. Although strange objects in the sky have been reported for many years, the "Flying Saucer Crash at Roswell" in 1947 (near the beginning of the Cold War) stirred the public's attention. This was great for anti-government conspiracy theorists, science fiction stories, the ridiculous pseudoscience of "panspermia" — and Roswell's tourism.

Evolutionists insist that not only did life evolve here (a hypothesis that is consistently dismantled here and in linked articles), but it must have evolved in space. New Agers "channel" various entities, including aliens. The message of these aliens is often that they are more highly evolved, and want to help us evolve into enlightenment.

As for Roswell's "crash"? Not so spectacular, it seems.

For more information with a Christian viewpoint of UFOs, click here and here.

That Bad Boy Can SWIM?

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Fri, 10 May 2013 19:00:00 +0000

NOAA

Squaring off against evolutionary conjecture is a strange critter called the boxfish. These toxic avengers look like they have the maneuverability of — well, a box. But that is the opposite of the truth.

Kind of cute, really.

But they have some surprises. In fact, they are so well designed that they are self-correcting, and even change the water flow. Auto manufactures have copied their design. They are being checked out as inspiration for undersea robots, too.

With their ‘boxy’ shape and rigid bony carapace that covers most of their body, boxfish look somewhat awkward compared to most other fish. As Science journal commented recently, ‘One look at the aptly named boxfish, and you might expect it to swim as well as a barn would fly.’

In reality, boxfish are able to swim extremely smoothly. This is even more remarkable considering where they live—reefs washed by highly turbulent and unpredictable waters. But even when continually buffeted by swirling currents, boxfish make only the slightest of deviations from their straight swimming paths, as they correct for unseen eddies and turbulence.

You really should read the rest of this short article, "How Does a Box Swim?"

Freedom of Speech for Some

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Thu, 09 May 2013 19:00:00 +0000

USFWS

I must confess that sometimes discrimination against Conservatives, Christians and biblical creationists becomes a bit hard to bear. Facebook pretends to be a vehicle for free expression (within obvious limitations), but shuts down Pages and closes accounts. Nations that are bastions of traditional family and Christian values are hostile to free speech — except for atheists, leftists (and how many Conservative atheists do you know?), evolutionists, secular humanists (atheists in disguise, wanting the tax breaks for being a religion) and more.

Yet, we're still here. We stand up for the truth and fight for what we believe in while we still can.

morgueFile/bazzo2006

But it's difficult when people "think" with their emotions, and manipulators lead them by the nose, telling them what to think.

People are unskilled at thinking critically. Schools allegedly teach such skills, but when encountering leftists, “new atheists”, evolutionists and so on, we see that the opposite is true. Arguments used to prove their points are fraught with logical fallacies and attempts to manipulate emotions (which can be seen with a cursory glance at the comments here on “Radaractive”). Some people will go completely around logic, making assertions and prejudicial conjecture, and then ridiculing creationists, Christians and Conservatives.

Why the irrational emotionalism?

I am convinced that these people know that they cannot defeat their opponents with reason, so they prefer to silence the opposition altogether. With remarkable chutzpah and hypocrisy, atheists and evolutionists pretend that they are the victims of discrimination, when in fact, they are the ones doing the discrimination.

Thoughtful, discriminating readers will want to read the rest of "Freedom Bound", in context.

Book Review: "The Deception" by Steven J. Wright

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Tue, 07 May 2013 19:00:00 +0000

“To believe in creation, you have to believe in a God. But what evidence is there for God anyway? And if you were to find that evidence, how would you know which God was the correct one? Doesn’t Hinduism have millions of gods? Maybe one of them is the real god, and he or she created everything instead of the Judeo-Christian God. Or what if it is the Christian God? How would you know which of the thousands of denominations is the correct one to follow? I might add that many ancient cultures and religions have similar myths on origins. It goes to show that folklores get passed down and shared from culture to culture, but there is no scientific evidence to support them. That’s why they are called myths.

“Class, I’m not here to debate God. I have my own beliefs, but this is a science class, and we only study the natural things—the things that can be tested and proven with experiments. Let me go over some of the evidences we have of evolution that clearly disprove creationism. The Bible states that the sun, moon, and stars were created after the earth. But the Big Bang Theory shows strong evidence that the sun, moon, and stars were created before the earth. Here is another one: The Bible says birds were created before the reptiles, but our fossil record shows that reptiles came first, and the birds evolved from them. In fact, that is what happened to the dinosaurs: through natural selection and mutations, they evolved into birds. Those little flying critters in your back yard are actually the ancestors of giant dinosaurs that roamed the earth sixty-five million years ago!

“The fossil record we have is clear evidence that life has evolved from simple organisms to more advanced life forms. You can’t argue with the bones!” Some of the students laughed. “This brings me to my next point. Has everyone heard the story of Noah’s Flood?” Many nodded in agreement. “Well, for those who haven’t, it is also recorded in Genesis. Simply put, the story is about a man named Noah. God told Noah He was going to destroy the entire world, and He wanted Noah to build a big boat to put the animals on so they would be saved from a global flood. There are so many problems with that story, but just like the creation myth, Christians believe in it despite the absurdity. For example, where did Noah get the wood for the ark? Didn’t he build it in the Middle East? There aren’t too many trees over there, you know; it’s mostly desert. And how could he fit all the animals on the ark? There are millions of species in existence, and no boat could ever be big enough to hold them all and still survive a flood. The story of Noah’s ark just doesn’t hold water.

“Did you know there are over three-hundred other flood legends from cultures all across the globe? Who is to say the legend recorded in the Bible is the right one? Isn’t that kind of arrogant? What if one of the other flood legends were the real one and the Bible copied from it? Some historians say the Bible copied things from other religions. Back then, it was a common practice to borrow ideas and customs from neighboring cultures. It was a battle of the gods, I guess you could say. Besides, there is no evidence of a worldwide flood anyway. In the Bible, it was just a story about God not liking how people were acting, so He destroyed them.

“Class, when you base your beliefs on some book supposedly written thousands of years ago, you have to sacrifice logic and reason for it to make sense; otherwise the entire basis for your faith is called into question. Why not choose science? It will never contradict itself!”

— Jeff Duncan, in The Deception, pp. 119-121

I am not very skilled at writing reviews, having done so few of them. So I will do what I have done before and just get to it. But I loathe the review system at Amazon, since people with an agenda attack books, reviews and reviewers, even though they did not read the book! Amazon needs to pay attention to what's going on there, as their review system has become a joke. So, I'm putting my review right here.

Anyway, I must disclose two things: This book was obtained through a free Kindle promotion at Amazon (also available in paperback), and also, the author is one of my Facebook friends. Neither of these factors will change what I have to say, and author Steven Wright would expect no less of me.

It is surprising to learn that this is the first novel by Wright (no relation to the comedian, I don't think). Let me start with some comments about the storytelling itself.
The Deception is not boring, and not difficult. It flows. I read it in one day.

One thing that I detest is a story that is predictable, especially for negative events. The suspense in those builds twice for me, once for the actual story suspense, and once for the disappointment that I was right.

Ain’t happenin’ here, Zeke. There were several times that I thought I had Mr. Wright’s plot lines all figured out, and I was pleased to be wrong. Except in one area, to be discussed later.

The characters had personality and were believable, including the cat, Samson. In fact, the main character, Jeff Duncan, was likable, then I didn't like him so much as the story progressed — he had flaws, and had to work on them. In addition, they made occasional wisecracks, which helped move the story along. We also see anger, frustration and sadness — some of these things hit too close to home, reminding me of people in my wife’s and my own experiences.

I’ll admit there were times that I was thinking, “What the heck are you doing, Steven?”, because I thought there was excessive drama and padding. Nope. I was selling the author short. Those things that provoked me to think, “Get on with it!” were there for a reason, but some reasons were not clear until later in the book.

I would like to call this kind of story “creation science fiction”, because it’s a novel that deals with creation science. Don’t expect to be preached at and feel like part of the book is an essay from a creationist organization. While creation science is foundational to the plot, the human elements are prominent.

The excerpt at the top shows some of what creationists have to deal with constantly: Prejudicial conjecture and bigotry. Jeff was offering opinions based on ignorance that he obtained from anti-creationist Web sites that are heavily biased with materialistic presuppositions. The questions (actually, excuses to cling to disbelief) have answers for honest people who care to look for them. Jeff did not want answers. Instead, he wanted to please his boss and went ahead with uninformed arbitrary assertions.

The issue of academic freedom and student indoctrination is discussed. Not only are the rights of the students actively trampled, but the rights of teachers as well. And don't try to tell me that this doesn't happen.

When I said that there was one thing that was predictable, it was that Jeff Duncan would learn the truth about creation science. The book contains a section with an overview of creationism that would serve as a starting point for someone who wishes to investigate further (see the "Creation Links" tab at the top of this Weblog for further investigation).

The Deception is a Christian book, there is no mistaking it. You will have some direct gospel presentation, miracles, unnerving dreams and visions, Christian conversation, conversion and more. Even though I am a biblical creationist Christian, I do not like the content to be overbearing and distract from the content. I did not feel that way here.

Most of the problems that were brought up in the story were resolved, so there's none of that, "But what about...?" frustration.

I recommend The Deception to Christians and non-Christians alike. Are you planning a sequel, Mr. Wright? If you want to have a character as an obstreperous creationist, I have someone to suggest...

— Cowboy Bob Sorensen

More On Evolutionists Not Understanding Evolution

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Mon, 06 May 2013 19:00:00 +0000

Last week, I posted about some evolutionists being honest enough to admit that they do not really understand evolution. Today, you can read an article demonstrating that many scientists as well as Darwin's Cheerleaders do not understand their own belief system.

Science would be useless without logic and critical thinking. Circular reasoning, straw man fallacies, formal logical fallacies and outright deception are used to keep the faithful fundamentalist evolutionists in line and fool people who do not put forth the effort to check things for themselves. Giving credit to evolution as if it were an actual entity (Fallacy of Reification) is contrary to evolutionary dogma — but people do it anyway. This happens frequently. The following article has several examples that can cause people to wonder about how poorly scientists and their press actually understand evolution. But then again, if the public was told evolutionary dogma in a straightforward manner, people would plainly see that it has no substance.

If evolutionists and reporters stuck to the essence of neo-Darwinism, many of their claims would never reach the press.

Darwin attempted to describe a natural mechanism (natural selection) that would generate the entire tree of life, with all its diversity. Neo-Darwinism identifies the source of variation as mutations. The essence of Darwinian theory is that the process is unguided, with no goals or purposes. Many evolutionists and their press agents seem to forget this.

You can read the examples of false attribution and other flaws at "Evolutionists Don't Understand Their Own Theory".

Kennel Club or Freak Show?

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Sat, 04 May 2013 13:00:00 +0000

Church Farm Dog Show / Wikimedia Commons / Basher Eyre

One-minute audio.

Animal breeds are an excellent example of speciation. Much of this is through artificial selection (selective breeding for certain traits). Both natural and artificial selection processes lead to a loss of genetic information, which makes the critter less fit for survivability in the wild. Mutts are the healthiest.

Evolution, Time, Typing and Monkey Business

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Fri, 03 May 2013 19:00:00 +0000

Have you heard the one about the monkeys and the typewriters? (If you're too young to know what a typewriter is, click here.) So here it is: Given enough time, typewriters and so forth, monkeys will produce all or part of the works of Shakespeare. Isn't that hilarious?

But seriously, folks, the concept of "given enough time, anything can happen" is a fundamentally flawed faith tenet of evolutionism. This is why the Evo Sith desperately cling to "deep time" and ridicule young-Earth creationists. (Ridicule is utilized when science and logic are ineffective at silencing their opposition.) The fact is, given an infinite amount of time, some things will never happen.

Prominent evolutionist Julian Huxley said that, given enough time, monkeys typing randomly could eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.

When arguing that life could have arisen by chance, evolutionists will often state that—given enough time—anything could happen, regardless of how improbable it might seem. For example, prominent evolutionist Julian Huxley (1887–1975) said that, given enough time, monkeys typing randomly could eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.

Since then, others too, such as Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins, have made similar pronouncements about monkeys’ random typing being able to produce one of Shakespeare’s sonnets, or at least a sentence from one of his plays.
But when Plymouth University (UK) researchers installed a keyboard and computer screen in the monkey enclosure at Paignton Zoo, home to six Sulawesi crested macaques, it didn’t result in a nicely typed set of the complete works of Shakespeare. Neither did they get a sonnet. Nor even a single word of Shakespeare.

You can find out more of what's Shake-ing with the primates by reading the rest of "Monkey Madness".

The Basis for Science is Faith

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Thu, 02 May 2013 19:00:00 +0000

People have a simplistic view of the processes of science. It does not have a basis in atheistic materialism. In fact, the origins of an effective, consistent approach to doing science has a long and complicated history. The political, social, religious and philosophical environments underwent many changes. The greatest scientific minds of the past (as well as many in the present) were Theists, usually Bible-believing Christians.

Radar's article give you an overview of the factors influencing the development of modern scientific methods. Many people who claim to be experts on science (and evolution) do not know much of this material at all!

"Yes, it is a press, certainly, but a press from which shall flow in inexhaustible streams the most abundant and most marvelous liquor that has ever flowed to relieve the thirst of men. Through it, God will spread His word; a spring of pure truth shall flow from it; like a new star it shall scatter the darkness of ignorance, and cause a light hithertofore unknown to shine among men." -Johannes Gutenberg

Faith is the primary component of both Darwinism and Creationism. This post investigates the faith ingredient of science. The Creationist believes that the Word of God is authoritative. The Bible is correct when it speaks to history and accurate when it speaks to science. The Bible is God's written way of communicating to mankind, showing us the way to Heaven after this life and the way to relationship with God during this life. While Creation Science is almost entirely involved in investigating the natural world, the eyewitness account of creation by God is considered authoritative. Creation Science believes in God as Creator and the Bible as Truth. Therefore God did indeed create the Universe and all that is material existence, including time itself and all the laws and forces of nature.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ came to Earth as the Messiah and did indeed both take the sins of the world upon Himself and also conquer death and Hell by rising from the dead and, after spending some time with His followers, returned to His place with God the Father and Spirit. We find salvation in accepting Jesus' sacrifice for us and becoming new creatures, reborn within as the Spirit of God replaces the dead spirit we inherited from our ancestors.

Darwinist Science (Naturalistic Materialistic Humanism) has faith that God did NOT create and that the Bible is NOT true or of any use. All supernatural causes are arbitrarily ruled out no matter what the investigation of evidence may seem to logically conclude. Darwinists are the modern day version of the CHURCH/STATE of the Middle Ages, determined to stifle dissension and censor and hide information from the common man. Darwinists deny God and deny that God created the Universe or life or information and ignore any evidence that is uncomfortable. In fact Darwinists work very hard to censor any non-Darwinist information. The NCSE is nothing but an organization designed to censor the information students will learn. Just as the CHURCH/STATE of the Middle Ages took a hard line against the common man being allowed to read or interpret the Bible and defended axiomatic science like a herd of Musk Oxen circling around their young, Darwinists rule the worlds of academia and science and also the news and entertainment media.

Occam's Razor has been tossed in the trashcan by the modern Darwinist. History has been rewritten and evidence has been twisted until it cries out in pain, as Burke said:

“Liberty does not exist in the absence of morality.”― Edmund Burke

I strongly recommend that you finish reading "Faith is the basis for Darwinist Evolution and Creation Science...First, Creation Science IS the basis for modern science". Addendum: There is now a Part 2, here.

Genetic Controls of the Embryo — Unfriendly to Evolution

noreply@blogger.com (Cowboy) — Wed, 01 May 2013 19:00:00 +0000

Flickr/Ed Uthman (image use does not imply endorsement of this post)

Let me over-simplify: Neo-Darwinism relies heavily on a series of gradual mutations so that one organism can, eventually, turn into another organism. Microbes to microbiologist, goo to you, that sort of thing. This flies in the face of observational science. Everything has to be in place at the same time, or an organism cannot change, or even survive, because mutations are meaningless at best, but usually harmful.

The startling complexity of DNA and genetics should make anyone an evolution denier with even a cursory glance at the processes. It helps illustrate the design and wonder of life. For example, embryonic development has genes that switch growth processes on and off... Here, let the author explain:

As they say in the real estate business, location is everything. It looks like the same working principle applies to genes and their control sequences in the genome during embryo development. And not just the gene’s simple location in a linear sense, but its three-dimensional spatial location.

During the growth of an embryo, genes that direct the developmental processes are precisely switched on and off. This highly complex process contextually confers specific properties to different cells that eventually become the various organs and tissues of the developing embryo. The precise timing and control of these genetic switches is critical to building a properly proportioned healthy animal.

One of the best studied individual genes in this process encodes a protein called “Fgf8” (Fibroblast growth factor 8). There are actually a number of different types of fibroblast growth-factor genes that are not only important for basic cell survival, but also for embryonic development, cell growth, cell differentiation, and tissue repair.

Let your knowledge grow by finishing "Embryology Gene Control Confounds Evolution"

Evolutionists Do Not Understand Evolution

noreply@blogger.com (Piltdown Superman) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:00:00 +0000

Some people claim to have a thorough knowledge of evolution. Amazingly, they know more than evolutionary and non-evolutionary scientists, even though they do not even have degrees themselves! In reality, evolution is inconsistent and constantly changing, and needs a great deal of tweaking to keep the pseudoscience in line with scientific observations.

Do evolutionary scientists themselves claim to have full understanding of evolution? Not by a long shot. Some will actually admit to having a lack of understanding. Yet, they persist in keeping the faith despite the evidence.

Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biological world. Unfortunately Ball fails to take his own advice and ends up doing precisely what he advises other evolutionists against—whitewashing the science.

You can learn more by reading the rest of "Evolutionist: Let’s Admit it, We Don’t Fully Understand How Evolution Works".

What is the Best Way to Teach Science?

noreply@blogger.com (Piltdown Superman) — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:00:00 +0000

“In science, people argue for their ideas, in terms of the evidence that they have. There should be more opportunities to look at why some ideas are wrong, as well as what the right ideas are.” — Jonathan Osborne

When discussing origins with proponents of evolution, we find that they simply repeat what they have been taught. Unfortunately, they have been taught "facts" that are conjecture, and "evidence" that is based on presuppositions and circular reasoning. Questioning evolution as a fact is effectively forbidden, and fundamentalist evolutionists strive to suppress critical thinking and examination of the evidence.

Jonathan Osborne wants to do things differently. Instead of reciting facts (both real and imagined), he wants students to do something radical: Argue from the available facts instead of starting with a conclusion. Although it's a step in the right direction and interferes with evolutionary indoctrination, it's not quite enough.

A professor of science education has a radical idea: teach science through argumentation, because that’s the way scientists do it.

If you were bored in science class having to learn a bunch of facts, you might have perked up if your teacher taught it the way Jonathan Osborne recommends: argue a position from available evidence. PhysOrg introduced its article by saying, “Teaching students how to argue based on available evidence engages them in the scientific process and provides a better idea of how science actually works.”

To find out what all is involved and why it isn't quite enough, you can read "Students Need to Argue Science, Not Memorize It".

Audio Saturday: So Eye See

noreply@blogger.com (Piltdown Superman) — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:00:00 +0000

Image After

This one-minute audio is about claims made by uninformed people that the human eye was made incorrectly. If you want more detailed information, click here.

Short Attention Spans, Social Media, Darwin's Cheerleaders and Lethargic Creationists

noreply@blogger.com (Piltdown Superman) — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 19:00:00 +0000

by Robert ("Cowboy Bob") Sorensen

This article is for the creationists, and I implore you to spare ten minutes to read it.

Science is on our side. Most of us are aware of this fact. Also, our numbers are growing and atheism is on the decline ^[1]. It is an exciting time to be a creationist! There are many organizations that present the science and theology supporting creationism and make material available on the Web ^[2], as well as books, videos and so forth.

So what are people doing with this wealth of information? Some will learn a bit, but after the entertainment value wears off, they lose interest. Others will become enthusiastic but do not continue to learn, and become intimidated when challenged by scoffers. There will be some who lose sight of the importance of the message because of their other concerns and leave it behind. Then there are the ones who are excited about the message, the science, the relevance and more, so they dig in deeper. These will learn more and work at giving an informed response to others ^[3].

I believe it is both a blessing and a curse to have social media. People today have shorter attention spans, and social media are helping it become shorter ^{[4, 5]}. People are in a hurry, and want things short and simple ^[6]. Social media cater to that, and it may or may not be fine for business purposes.

Sure, we all like pictures, cartoons, sayings made into graphics, short updates and so on. How does it help with important subjects like the relevance of creation? Those items are spiritual and intellectual junk food; a steady diet will have a negative impact on your growth. Some people cannot remember the last time they sat still and read a book for an hour, or even half an hour. By the way, how is your personal Bible reading going? Do you still have time for that?

Meanwhile, Darwin's Cheerleaders (modern Luddites ^[8]) are spending time learning their talking points so they can try to intimidate creationists with their interpretations of the evidence. They will often indulge personal attacks, ridicule, arbitrary assertions and copy-and-paste elephant hurling to give the false impression that they are our intellectual superiors ^[7]. (Wish I had time to discuss atheists pretending to be Christians, or former Christians, who try to manipulate emotions.) Creationists who are not interested in learning about critical thinking ^[9 10] are often at a loss to be able to give a meaningful response to a scoffer, and may not realize that an assertion about evolution or God is not actual evidence to support their position. For example, how would you respond to the claim that "the only people that don't accept the Theory of Evolution are those who don't understand it"? I will let you work on that yourselves, but I will say that it is not only insulting and condescending, but loaded with fallacies.

Explaining our faith, and giving reasons for our beliefs (both scientific and theological) is not just an intellectual parlor game. It is very serious. No, I am not asking anyone to be an expert in all fields. That would be ridiculous. I am asking people to spend time learning how to think critically and have a good working knowledge of the subjects. People will be more likely to follow a link you supply if you have shown a personal interest in the subject and that you have spent some effort on it. Clicking "Like", giving a "Retweet" and so on will not impress most of those people. Oh, you went to a seminar or a presentation? Great! I think. Was it just entertainment, or are you going to continue?

I need to add that kids are leaving the church — but you knew that. One reason is that they are brainwashed (that's right, I said it!) by the secular humanist learning institutions, and doubt the relevance and validity of the faith. People have said later in life, "I couldn't get answers when I was younger".

Part of the problem is that the church is not taking the foundations of the Bible seriously. In addition, parents are shrugging off their responsibilities. This does not need to happen, and resources are available ^{[11, 12]}. (Do not be lazy and just throw a link at them. Not only does that lend the impression that you really do not care, but so many people today have short attention spans, as we have seen.) Do your children deserve the effort for you to give them answers and proper instruction?

This is ironic, isn't it?

The ten minutes I asked you for is almost up. Interestingly, most articles on creation science take that long, or less, to read. Social media? Use it, by all means! But do not rely on slogans, pictures, short status updates, article introductions and so forth as your source of education. If you believe that the creation science message is foundational to the gospel and worth presenting (just like the gospel itself must be presented), then we have work to do. And above all, pray.

It's time to get fired up ^{[13, 14]}!

Evolution's Luddites

noreply@blogger.com (Piltdown Superman) — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:00:00 +0000

by Robert ("Cowboy Bob") Sorensen

The term “Luddite” refers to a rebellious movement in the early part of the Industrial Revolution. At that time, some people were destroying machinery that was going to put them out of work because they could be replaced by unskilled, low-paid people who would run the machines ^[1].

Although most people do not know the real meaning of “Luddite” today and the fear of unemployment and starvation that motivated the movement, many know the disparaging term from definition number two, “One who opposes technical or technological change” ^[2]. Even that meaning is being lost because the term is being used imprecisely. People who want an emotionally-charged word for their political or religious enemies will call them “Luddites” ^{[3, 4]}. I have encountered the term dreadfully misused several time in reference to creationists.

Since someone who believes in Intelligent Design or biblical (Six Day) creation is tagged with this term, it seems fitting to turn this around: Evolutionists are Luddites. That’s right, I said it! Stop and think: They are opposed to change, clinging to their fundamentally flawed science philosophies despite the evidence.

This becomes readily apparent when Darwin’s Cheerleaders on Algore's Amazing Internet™ attack creationists with verbal and spurious legislative violence. They are emboldened by atheist and humanist efforts to remove “religion” from public life with banal complaints ^{[5, 6, 7]}, and by libelous attacks on creationist ministries (and Christians in general) ^{[8, 9, 10]}.

Not only are they committed to a self-serving materialistic definition of “science” ^[11], but they are protecting their cash cow. After all, if someone comes up with the Next Big Thing in Evolution®, he or she will be expecting an increase of funding from the government and other supporters ^[12]. Imagine that…our tax dollars at work to support evolution, which is a foundation for the religions of atheism and secular humanism ^[13].

I put it to you that the real opponents of scientific progress ^[14], the real Luddites, are the evolutionists — ironically, they are attempting to put the Luddite label on creationists.

Audio Saturday — Sea Spiders

noreply@blogger.com (Piltdown Superman) — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:00:00 +0000

"Sea spider" is just a name. They are not really spiders at all. Some are found at ocean depths of over 6,000 feet and grow quite large.

Image courtesy of Bahamas Deep-Sea Coral Expedition Science Party, NOAA-OE.

They baffle evolutionists. For one thing, some species live near deep-sea hydrothermal vents, where conditions are very harsh indeed. Another annoyance is that fossil sea spiders from allegedly 160 million years ago are virtually unchanged from their modern counterparts. Listen to this, for one minute:

And a short video if you like: